For your consideration and comment I propose the following simple thought and logic experiment. FYI - for my purposes the term universe = multiverse = all of existence.

A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot be Explained

1. Consider an empty universe.

a. There is nothing to cause anything to happen.

2. Now consider the first thing in the universe.

It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.

It doesn't matter what it is.

3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.

a. Therefore it cannot be explained.

4. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

5. Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.

a. This to cannot be explained since the first thing still has no cause.

6. Ultimate Corollary - Given that the universe itself cannot be explained, then nothing in the universe can be ultimately explained. (This corollary was added to the original proof on 5/21/16 by nano with admin permission. See Message 166)

Thank you for your attention, your consideration and your comments.

**************************************************Added on 10/23/16:

End of Discussion Proof Reformulation

Taking into account all of existence and considering everything that ever existed anywhere, there are only two possible origin states for the first thing ever to exist:

- It either created itself from absolutely nothing, which is impossible to explain

- Or it was always there and had no beginning, which is also impossible to explain

- Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explained

Where: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence

Edited by Admin, : Make text of link to thread be the title, and minor cleanup.

How does it follow that an event with no cause has no explanation? We can explain the Casimir effect and radioactivity, and we can at least describe quantum uncertainty. I guess you could claim that any event resulting from quantum uncertainty has no cause, but arguing against that is that even though quantum uncertainty has yet to give up all it's secrets we still know a great deal about it. Entire libraries of books describing various facets of something is the opposite of the absence of an explanation, even if we still have a long way to go.

" Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises."

"Why is there something rather than nothing"

They may be unanswerable, if that is what you are driving at. However, the answer might be ‘There is no alternative to there being something’. Which would explain why there is something quite nicely.

Consider an empty universe.

Does it have space or time? Tongue in cheek question really, but it's there because there is a relationship between space and time and 'things'. I mean what if the size of the universe is just the answer to 'what is the longest distance between two things?'I'm assuming you are making the first points not trying to make a cosmology argument.

However, in that spirit - can you prove an empty universe - ie., 'the state of nothing' - is possible? Can you disprove that there are some necessary entities? Because if they do exist then the explanation to their existence is that they are necessarily existent, which would disprove you. So for your proof to be a proof, it has to be able to rule out the alternatives that would disprove it.

It may be difficult to prove there are necessary entities, but it cannot be ruled out at this time, so maybe there is an explanation for the universe.

Well, for there to be necessary entities, a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms. But how? It could not involve a state where there was some x for which P(x) and ~P(x), because there would not, in fact, be some x.

Well, for there to be necessary entities, a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms.

Exactly. Since we can explain contingent entities based on other contingent entities or on necessary entities, and we can explain necessary entities as they are necessary. It is therefore possible that the universe can be explained.

To prove that the universe 'Cannot Be Explained' therefore, means proving no necessary entities exist.

Imagine a world where there are only contingent entities. Since all entities are explained in terms of other entities, this implies either an infinite regression or a circularity of causation. Each of these explanatory entities, is necessary. A necessary entity contradicts the statement there are only contingent entities. Therefore there cannot be contingent only entities.